From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sat Dec 23 16:42:38 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27C59E86A28 for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 16:42:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ted@io-tx.com) Received: from io-tx.com (io-tx.com [209.198.147.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.io-tx.com", Issuer "AlphaSSL CA - SHA256 - G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE17D6A0C6 for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 16:42:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ted@io-tx.com) Received: from io-tx.com (io-tx.com [209.198.147.18]) (authenticated bits=0) by io-tx.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id vBNGgQRI061117 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 23 Dec 2017 10:42:27 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ted@io-tx.com) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 10:42:26 -0600 (CST) From: Ted Hatfield To: Matthias Andree cc: Kevin Oberman , Eugene Grosbein , FreeBSD Ports ML Subject: Re: Procmail got updated! In-Reply-To: <1f5623f9-0ed1-3fb7-d81a-efd2f08ae3c8@gmx.de> Message-ID: References: <5A39F7C9.1030800@grosbein.net> <05504d3c-3225-e83f-8f10-225319421a35@gmx.de> <5A3B7BFF.2020202@grosbein.net> <845b162a-918d-4a5f-c3c2-4f58b60bff73@gmx.de> <5A3CA1B5.2090907@grosbein.net> <1f5623f9-0ed1-3fb7-d81a-efd2f08ae3c8@gmx.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (BSF 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at io-tx.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 on io-tx.com tests=ALL_TRUSTED, AWL, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 user=root X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on io-tx.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.25 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 16:42:38 -0000 On Sat, 23 Dec 2017, Matthias Andree wrote: > Am 23.12.2017 um 08:12 schrieb Kevin Oberman: >> >> So, why does Eugene's question have no relevance to the procmail >> case?  Could you please explain? > > Because I am not willing to discuss generics when we have a specific > case of port at hand. > The attempted generalization distracts from that, and I insinuate that > distraction is the purpose. > Everyone is free to start a new thread about general port maintenance > and removal principles. > I think the best reason to keep procmail available in ports is that there are still quite a number of people still using it. In fact opensource.com has an article dated 11/01/2017 titled: SpamAssassin, MIMEDefang, and Procmail: Best Trio of 2017 https://opensource.com/article/17/11/spamassassin-mimedefang-and-procmail Not necessarily an argument for code safety but a good argument that it's still being used by quite a number of people. I think that as long as someone is willing to patch the software when vulnerabilities come up we should keep the port available. Ted Hatfield